User talk:Uriah923/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Here's the deal

Since you seemed to be the only blockee to email me in a mature way, I have unblocked you. However I know that Taxman had a good reason for blocking you, and thus I will be watching over you, and I reserve the right to block you on sight if you use anymore linkspam or do anything else blockworthy. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

For some reason I got this mail today, but dated the 28th, but I see it's already been taken care of. Happy editing. Inter\Echo 22:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Music and bands notability

Hello, Uriah. I'm happy to see your effort to contribute to Wikipedia. I know very little about bands, myself, but since you're adding articles on bands I thought I'd point you to the Wikipedia guidelines on the subject: WP:MUSIC. I don't know if the bands your listing meet the criteria on that page or not, but I wanted to give you a heads-up that if they don't you could find people clamoring for their deletion, and even more importantly you could find people asserting you're not acting in a good faith manner. As I said, I'm just posting this for your information and not making any comments at all about whether or not the articles you've created fit or not, since I personally know nothing about the subject. You might want to consult with Redwolf on the subject, just to be sure. Jdavidb 19:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Never fear, the bands I've added so far meet the guidelines listed on WP:Music. I'll be sure bands I add in the future do, as well. Uriah923 19:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff

Don't have much time right now, but did you see my reply on Parmenides? I wasn't sure if you knew about wikiquote. Normally we don't like quotes except as demonstative within prose. But a very common, and good, thing to do is have a page at Wikiquote and we have templates to link to that page (just like Wiktionary, Wikisource, etc.). Ideally every bio page (if applicable) should have a corresponding Wikiquote page. So that's my recommendation. I'm trying not to be around too much though right now, have schoolwork, so if you have any questions, Uncle G knows everything and would probably help. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 22:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Original Content or Copyvio?

On your user page you say that "you" wrote several articles, but some of them were just copied and pasted from Schlumberger's Oilfield Glossary.

From the Schlumberger website:

  • Copyright. Except as otherwise indicated, all website materials, including but not limited to design, text, graphics, other files, and the selection and arrangement thereof, are the copyright property of Schlumberger, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. You may electronically copy and print hard-copy excerpts of this website (and materials here) only for non-commercial personal use, or non-commercial use within the organization that employs you, provided that the materials are not modified and all copyright or proprietary notices are retained. Any other use of the materials in this website-including any commercial use, reproduction for purposes other than described above, modification, distribution, republication, display, or performance-without the prior written permission of Schlumberger is strictly prohibited.

Looks like some editing might be in order?

WikiDon 11:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, at least Casing (oilfield), and Oil reservoir are blatant copyvios, word for word cut and pastes, unless it can be proven you wrote the content first and they copied it. The image in Casing (oilfield) is also from Schlumberger and doesn't even assert it is under the GFDL. I also have suspicions about the after virtue and Democritus text. Based on the previous history of copyvios (see Uriah's user talk archives for previous discussion) that calls into question the rest of the contributions too. Uriah, how to avoid copyright violations has been explained just way too many times to you for this to still be happening. - Taxman Talk 21:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Look at the dates that the oil articles were created - way before any conversation I had with Taxman or anyone about copyvios. If I were to create the articles again, I would have my WP history to go on, but back then I had nothing. I haven't visited the pages in a long time, but I seem to remember that some (most?) of them have been edited. If further work needs to be done, then let me know.
The recent edits (after virtue, democritus) you will find to be of much higher quality and (as far as I'm aware) adhere to WP policy. Uriah923 22:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The point is they need to be fixed. If there was blatant copy and pasting going on that has to be deleted. Some editing after that is not enough, but a lot may be. Even then the versions in the history with the blatant copyvios need to be deleted from the history. Casing and oil reservoir have no later edits to speak of. I'm deleting them and the image from casing. That those were so blatant and you didn't bother to go back and check or handle the copyright violation is a problem. you just listed them on your page as if you wrote them. After virtue and Democritus both take so much text from a single source that simply rewording them is not probably not enough. So yes, each edit you've made now has to be gone through to see if it is a copyvio. Anything you copied and pasted from another site is definitely one. What a PITA. - Taxman Talk 22:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OmniNerd proposal

Hello Uriah923. You've been good, and so I believe we can remove some of your restrictions, but the following shall not be in effect unless Taxman agrees.

  • You will be permitted to talk about OmniNerd on your user page, and link to those articles you've written
  • You will be permitted to talk about OmniNerd when the context is appropriate, don't try to find loopholes in this. Whether or not the context is appropriate shall be determined by myself or Taxman
  • You will NOT be permitted to mention OmniNerd in any articles, and you will not be permitted to recreate articles on the topic of OmniNerd.
  • You will NOT be permitted to link to OmniNerd in your signature.
  • Obviously enough you can talk about OmniNerd with myself and Taxman, even before he accepts this.

Keep up the good work otherwise :) Redwolf24 (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the problems were recent, blatant, and premeditated enough to still not warrant mentioning, promoting, or anything else on any other pages, but you can link to what you want on your user page. Linking or discussing on any other articles or talk pages including wasting people's time extending past discussions simply doesn't seem worth it. It's been nice not having to waste a ton of time on the issue anymore, and I'd like it to stay that way. That seems fairly obviously in the best interests of Wikipedia. - Taxman Talk 05:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so I'm going to link to articles I've personally written on my user page. The only other thing I'd like to do is suggest a certain number of articles for the two of you to review and then decide if they are worth posting on the corresponding WP articles as external links. What do you think? Uriah923 05:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
That issue has already been decided quite conclusively. Dmcdevit·t 05:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, no. It has been decided ON is not notable enough, and if we linked to every guy's opinion on a topic, it would be a bit spammy. Just user page for now. And as for your sig: go to Special:Preferences and check 'raw signatures' and write in [[User:Uriah923|Yoursighere(usetagslike<fontcolor="FOO">)]] Redwolf24 (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what opinion has to do with anything, as the articles I'm speaking of contain none. These are also articles that had support from others to be added as external links (Jmabel's comments, Barefootguru's comments) and would have been added by others if it weren't for the blanket decision.
But, if you disagree with them in those two cases, what you say goes. I'll leave it at that. Uriah923 01:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
It's been decided to not link to the site, or anything in the site's domain from our articles. For now, just links from your user page. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
As Wesley said to Buttercup... uriah923(talk) 02:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
To be polite, I'll give you one chance to stop your promotional campaign, but you're clearly violating the agreement we had and it amounts to disruption, again. Don't ask people to add links to your site, don't add them under anonymous IP's, and don't keep multiple talk page discussions going to promote your site. We were very clear before that type of promotional activity is not what Wikipedia is for. - Taxman Talk 16:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
You cannot dismiss me as a spammer. I have followed WP guidelines and demonstrated my interest in developing WP as a quality encyclopedia. In all seriousness, I care about WP. That fact can't be disputed. I put hours and hours into adding content and improving articles. I do not add links to sites with which I am affiliated. When I think a link would be appropriate, I involve an interested editor/admin and have them review the case.
I would not like to get into the same discussions as before. I believe that my recent actions speak for themselves, but I do not think you are able to evaluate this situation without bias. Is there a way we can discuss this with a review board or something? I really feel that I'm being bullied. uriah923(talk) 17:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
If you want to improve WP, just go do that, and stop trying to promote your website, it's really simple. Just drop the issue completely, stop promoting your site and we'll all be happy, Wikipedia will get better, and no hard feelings. WP articles need serious references, not links to websites. If you continue your promotion it will just become completely obvious that's the only thing important to you. - Taxman Talk 17:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel comfortable having this discussion with you. If this issue cannot be resolved via the comments of other admins on the iTunes talk page, then I will request it to whatever admin review boards or arbitrator boards there are. uriah923(talk) 17:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this still going on?? Uriah, find something to do here besides promote your website. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Since the resolution of the issue, I've made over 500 edits doing something other than promoting any website. Please find something to do here other than come on my talk page and accuse me of things I haven't done. uriah923(talk) 21:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
No, that doesn't mean you now get to promote your website, because you showed good behavior. Hm, I had this added to the spam blacklist a little while ago, but it was removed. Just stop. I don't want to see any links to ON at all; this is an encyclopedia, not your user page. Dmcdevit·t 23:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Taxman bullies me and then recruits his friends to come and bully me, too. I'm not going to continue this conversation. uriah923(talk) 00:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Reruits his friends? Not to imply that Taxman is not a friend of me, but I had this put in the spam blacklist a week ago, and considered it done with until I saw this thread on my watchlist. Please keep asume good faith in mind. Dmcdevit·t 00:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't ask either of them or anyone else to comment. Apparently we've all watching your actions which should be telling for you on how big of a problem this has been, as we've all got better things to do. But I will now implore everyone to just drop the issue. You have the chance to do the right thing, so I respectfully request that you do that. No mentioning of ON of any kind and the issue will magically disappear. - Taxman Talk 00:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the offer, but I feel a permanent gag order is unfair. I think I've earned good faith and am going to pursue a third party. uriah923(talk) 01:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
At least we know what's more important to you. Wikipedia is not the place for advertising your site. No matter how many edits you make you can't use the project for your own gains. And based on how many times you've trotted out how many edits you've made (100 of your edits are to your userpage and half of those are just trumpeting your contributions) it seems that was your goal all along. - Taxman Talk 13:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Uriah, I see no way to assume good faith about any further ON promotion. As Taxman said in Talk:ITunes, "I would again ask you to consider what is better for the project, and how much more wasted time would not be. Your choice will make your real motivations clear." TheJabberwock 06:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page links

I don't edit other users' pages, but I thought I would bring it to your attention that some of your music links (Mogwai, Muse, Thursday) don't link to the articles you want. Imaginaryoctopus 17:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Good call. I fixed them. uriah923(talk) 21:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Based on the general sound of the bands on your list, I would recommend checking out the following: The Academy Is..., AFI, As Tall as Lions, Beneath Augusta, Courage Riley, dredg, Moneen, Northstar, Penfold, Rainer Maria, Veda, and The White Octave. Some of these are better known than others, but they all should have some music available on the internet. And of course I must suggest Sufjan Stevens, since he is one of my favorite musicians ever. Imaginaryoctopus 00:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Having stumbled across your page from Imaginaryoctopus's, i'll throw in my two cents as well, combined with me reasons for reccomending: 1.) The Bravery. They're like the Killers, except (in my opnion) a lot better. Maybe you know them and don't like them, but if not check them out. They're a little more electronic than the Killers (they actually use a synth and are the opening band for Depeche Mode on their tour this year), but rock hard. Especially The Ring Song, Public Service Announcement, and Swollen Summer. 2.) Apollo Sunshine. They opened for Piebald at least two years in a row (and i think three) at Piebald's christmas show in Andover, MA (both bands originated there, to the best of my knowledge - or at least bery close by). The sound's different, but still great - a little laid back, dont-take-themselves-too-seriously keyboard kind of sound. I Was On The Moon, Mayday Disorder, and The Womb are definitely all worth a listen (all are off the first album, but i just got the second disc a few days ago and haven't had a chance for a real thorough listen-through yet.) 3.) The Decembrists and The Arcade Fire. Similar modern-Folk-Rock style sound of Wilco; if Decembrists a bit more than Arcade Fire. AF reminds me a bit of Neil Young, and I really like them; I don't know songs really well enough to reccomend a particular one. The Decmebrists I'd say The Mariner's Tale (a long, 8 minute story-song) (and naturally 16 Military Wives, though it's got a different feel than the rest of their music) is definitely worth checking out. That's just my first reaction of stuff to check out. Hope I didn't but in with unwanted advice.
p.s. where did you run into Piebald? I'm always curious about people who know them; I always thought of them as localer than most bands as they play a christmas show every year at the town hall (but, then, this year i'm living in germany and there are people here who know them so clearly theyre not as small as i thought). And, if i may, i'd love to compliment your choice on the Kings of Leon. Top notch under-rated stuff right there.--jfg284 you were saying? 00:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
You're not intruding at all; I welcome music suggestions and it's always good to know there are others out there with good taste. I'm not sure how I found out about Piebald, but it could have been from reading on allmusic.com or from browsing on emusic.com. I've heard a song or two of the Bravery, but haven't checked them out yet. I'll do so, along with the others. Feel free to come back and let me know of any other good bands you want to share. uriah923(talk) 01:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Hanson

At Talk:Jeff Hanson, you said:

More information and photos would be appreciated.

I just completed a significant rewrite of Jeff Hanson. Could you upload one of the press photos available here and put it in the article? Thanks. 66.167.139.106 03:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Conventional warfare

Hi. The only edit that I've made to the conventional warfare article was to correct a spelling error, so I really don't feel qualified to engage in the current discussion.

Sue Anne 23:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Ditto. I just added a template. Palm_Dogg 01:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The issue was resolved. Thanks for your response, anyway. uriah923(talk) 14:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Hi there, just noting the page you recently created at Sheldon erikson. Firstly, you included a space between the # and the word redirect, which caused the page not to work as intended. (I've fixed it.) Second, it's not actually needed at all, because the search box is case-insensitive with respect to the first letter of words entered in it.

Keep up the good work! Stifle 19:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Doh. uriah923(talk) 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revelation

Thanks for adding the references to the Revelation article! Much appreciated! The Jade Knight 07:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rembrandt

_ _ I put Rembrandt back, as he is the poster-child for the difference between an equal Dab'n (what you created) and what IIRC is called a main-article Dab'n via a top-of-page dab'n. That is to say, the importance of the painter is so much greater than that of the book, the toothpaste, and whatever, that there is much less cost to having the book and toothpaste readers take an extra step thru the painter's article, than having the many readers interested in the painter look at his obscure middle name or go thru the Dab page.
_ _ I don't consider you obligated to put back the refs that you moved (nor do i intend to do so myself): that's good work for bots.
_ _ It's quite possible that you were the victim in this: it might be worth reviewing whatever you have read about Dabs, and seeing whether you can find something that misled you. If it can be identified, i'd recommend you either put something about it on that page's talk page, or let me know if you don't care to get into that aspect of the thing. That's how we improve the aids to editors.
--Jerzy•t 03:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dang. I thought I was doing some good. I guess I'll read up on Dabs some more... uriah923(talk) 13:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conventional warfare

This is what I want to add:

Conventional warfare is a form of warfare conducted by using conventional military weapons and battlefield tactics between two or more states in open confrontation. The forces on each side are well-defined, and fight using weapons that primarily target the opposing army. It is warfare considered as being fought through means other than with psychological warfare or weapons of mass destruction, namely chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

The general purpose of conventional warfare is to destroy the opponent's will to fight thus forcing them to negotiate. However, secttions of the opposing army may refuse to accept suurender and resort to unconventional warfare in order to achieve their goals.

Please say why you find this problematic.Harrypotter 00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm copying this conversation to the conventional warfare talk page. uriah923(talk) 04:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy

Apologies for the length of time it took me to reply to your note. I would be happy to act as your advocate; however, I will not be able to pay any significant attention to the case until the week after next, that which begins on the 12th. If this is a problem then I must decline; however if it can wait, I am happy to act on your behalf. Wally 20:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've started a request for arbitration on the issue here, so (if my understanding of the process is correct) the time of advocacy is past. I'll let you know if it is otherwise. uriah923(talk) 06:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Soy milk nutrients.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Soy milk nutrients.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Dethomas 19:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I forgot about this image. It was uploaded a long time ago - before I knew much about Wikipedia. Please delete it; it's really just a table, anyway. uriah923(talk) 21:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
from User_talk:Dethomas#Image:Soy_milk_nutrients.jpg...
The {{no source}} tag will let the image be picked up and deleted, eventually. As another run-of-the-mill editor, I can't delete an image. But you could tag it as {{subst:nsd}} or {{subst:nld}} and let the speepy deletion process take its course.
I added the no licence tag to help along the process. Thanks for the notification. uriah923(talk) 21:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Routing.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Routing.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ON redirect

I created a redirect page at User:Uriah923/ON to fix redlinks on pages such as Talk:Conventional warfare. Just thought you should know. TheJabberwock 04:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Latter Day Saint Collaboration of the fortnight

Do you really need to create a new page? Moving this to a new "title" would retain the old history on both the main and talk pages. I would agree that "fortnight" should go -- much to short a time to accomplish anything of great value. But .... as to the use of "Mormon", the term almost exclusively applies to the Utah based LDS church, excluding all others sects in the group. How about Latter Day Saint collaboration to be all inclusive? This agrees with the naming conventions established by scholars, and adopted at the project page. By the way -- I would vote again for either Mormon Trail or Mormon Battalion, but there are many other weak articles. Hope to be able to help. WBardwin 05:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

My original plan was to revise that page, but creating a new page was so much easier and cleaner. I also chose to use "Mormon" in the title because I am interested in working on articles having to do with the Utah-based LDS church - another reason to make a new page instead of trying to revamp the old one. The other page seemed so unorganized and stagnant, so rather than try to pick up the pieces and make the old project work, I'd just set up a new one that I can ensure will always be active and organized. The way I see it, the other page will (most likely) continue to fizzle out, preventing any sort of redundancy. In any case, I'm glad to have you around to help. How about we get to work on Helaman for the remainder of April and start this thing off right? uriah923(talk) 14:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree on changing it to month and doing some revitalization, but it should be Latter Day Saint collaborations, not just Mormon; the project is not focused solely on the LDS Chuch. Great job on the additions to Helaman, by the way. Tijuana Brass¿Qué pasa?-E@ 18:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the collaboration that I've created doesn't exactly replace the old one; it's more limited in scope and it's month-based. I also agree that if my goal was to revise/revamp the old collaboration, that the best thing to do would be not to start a new collaboration. But, I'm not really interested in working on articles about any of the other sects or schisms. I realize that "Latter Day Saint Collaboration" might be a more inclusive/general name, but must collaborations be at the most general level possible? If that's the case, why not bump it up to "Christian Collaboration" or "Religious Collaboration"?
If you were involved in the previous collaboration, I can see how you'd not want it to go defunct, but I'd rather start a new collaboration on the topic that I'm interested in and concentrate on improving articles. I hope that you will join me! Afterall, the new collaboration already has a collaboration page that is more organized than the previous and has accomplished more on Helaman in a day than the old one did in months! uriah923(talk) 18:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I would still vote for one collaboration page, to include all project members. Ideally, I would like to see all project participants included, and our range should be as wide as possible. One of our new members, Nerd42, is from a recently emerging RLDS sect and has provided a good wake up call to us all. In addition, many topics, i.e. Book of Mormon, belong to most/all of the traditions, and would be difficult to single out. But we could subdivide on the one page and select projects from various categories. Utah Saints, Prairie Saints, Early History, Biographies, Theology?? WBardwin 23:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
How about this as a compromise. I could add a section to the bottom of the collaboration page for "tangential pages" that aren't technically "Mormon," but are related somehow. Then, they can be worked on if they receive overwhelming support. uriah923(talk) 15:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Helaman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Helaman.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Mormon collaboration

Thanks man. - Reaverdrop 22:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helaman

Oh, I'm pretty much done. Just tweaking and fixing. On joining the Mormon Collaboration of the Month: Ha! I beat you to it! Put my name on the participants' list last night. I see a Reaverdrop has since joined also. Novel-Technology 22:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

It isn't appropriate to have a to-do list that includes specific editors whose actions you wish to oppose. --Cyde Weys 17:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Word of Wisdom

U -- noticed that you're active right now. Mind going over to Word of Wisdom and checking the edit history? Been having a difficult time with a user that doesn't want to be reasoned with; I've done three reverts and could use some help -- don't want to hit 3RR. Thanks. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 03:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] calm words and reason

You seem like a person with common sense and a calm head. (Only if you have time and patience), could you please drop in on Elections in Cuba. I am party to a neutrality dispute there, and I have been trying patiently to engage in a discussion of the points of view with hopes of finding a compromise, but for some unfortunate reason, my attempts have been failing. The most recent status is that when I post a neutrality dispute box and request talk, the box gets reverted away without discussion. Perhaps some calm words and reason from you might make a difference. Thanks in advance. BruceHallman 17:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks for taking the time to help. BruceHallman 19:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by banned users

Edits by banned users are always reverted; we don't waste our time evaluating their worth. Jayjg (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess that fits with typical WP "big-wig" actions, but I don't agree with it. I'll go in and change it back manually. uriah923(talk) 03:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hear, hear. ElectricRay 09:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
But good faith editors can repeat the edit and/or take responsibility for it as if they had done it themselves (a null edit with an explanation in the edit summary should work). That forestalls wasted time reverting or arguing about the edit. - Taxman Talk 11:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
It only takes a few seconds to quickly determine if the edit is valuable or not - which seems to be the clear responsibility of the reverter - no arguing necessary. Additionally, didn't Iamthejabberwock take responsibility for the edit here? Why was it reverted even after that? In any case, the article is back where it should be now, and I should stop arguing before it gets interpreted as me disobeying consensus or something. uriah923(talk) 14:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board

Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board. Thanks. --Facto 05:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Listing {{Latter-day Saints}} for deletion

Hi - the template {{Latter-day Saints}} appears to duplicate the purpose and functionality of {{LDS}} - I am going to ask that it, {{Latter-day Saints}}, be deleted - but wanted to notify all the contributors in case they object. Trödel 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)